Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
SD67
Member
Posts: 381
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 6 times
United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by SD67 »

Ron5 wrote: 20 Sep 2021, 13:10
RunningStrong wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:If we purchase the JLTV direct from the US under FMS it is likely to be the cheapest option out of the platforms under consideration. I do think we need to broaden out search though, as many countries are now producing platforms of a type that would meet the MRV(P) phases one and two, South Africa for example.
I agree, I don't believe JLTV is the vehicle we need, and I don't believe Oshkosh will have sufficient incentive to make the British-standard of changes that are required for our use (Bowman just to start).

Perhaps with the latest security pact we will be looking towards the Bushmaster, to keep both Australia and Thales happy.
1. JLTV is half the price of any of its competitors. That's why it was selected by the UK. Fitting UK comms is not an issue.

2. Bushmaster is not competing against JLTV. It's an entry in part 2 of the requirement,. JLTV has already won part 1.
I sincerely doubt that on a lifecycle basis, in British army service with British equipment the JLTV will be cheaper than a home grown alternative. It uses an engine and gearbox that have never been used in Europe. That's one big standalone supply chain. The average age of the Humvee fleet is still only 17years and they're being replaced. The philosophy is mass produce, use for ten years, sell on, repeat. Anything the British army buys, you can pretty much guarantee it's going to be thrashed to death for half a century

But this can easily be resolved by the time honoured technique called a "tender". Ie The army defines requirements tightly and puts out an RFP calling for full lifecycle costing detail.

SD67
Member
Posts: 381
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 6 times
United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by SD67 »

BB85 wrote: 30 Dec 2021, 16:31 The unit price was under $500k in 2019 vs over $1.25mm for Foxhound. Some of that is down to the composite materials used to reduce Foxhound weight but a lot of it is down to EOS.
Foxhound was a failure on the export market so there is very little point sustaining it if the jobs will only last 5 years after an expensive slow build process. The US could have already delivered the UK army requirement of 1,000 vehicles if we'd order in 2019.
I think Foxhound was a dead end development. They gave a budget to a bunch of ex-F1 engineers and they went to town on composite chassis, four wheel steering etc, also monobloc engines tend to have cooling problems. I expect Army will mend and make to with UOR vehicles until the Ajax mess is well and truly sorted, bigger fish to fry right now.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2819
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 35 times
United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by SW1 »

Is there a JLTV with the steering wheel on the correct side?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2819
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 35 times
United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by SW1 »

SD67 wrote: 31 Dec 2021, 17:18
BB85 wrote: 30 Dec 2021, 16:31 The unit price was under $500k in 2019 vs over $1.25mm for Foxhound. Some of that is down to the composite materials used to reduce Foxhound weight but a lot of it is down to EOS.
Foxhound was a failure on the export market so there is very little point sustaining it if the jobs will only last 5 years after an expensive slow build process. The US could have already delivered the UK army requirement of 1,000 vehicles if we'd order in 2019.
I think Foxhound was a dead end development. They gave a budget to a bunch of ex-F1 engineers and they went to town on composite chassis, four wheel steering etc, also monobloc engines tend to have cooling problems. I expect Army will mend and make to with UOR vehicles until the Ajax mess is well and truly sorted, bigger fish to fry right now.

I thought those design choices where as the a result of the vehicle weight and turning circle requirement they were told to meet?

SD67
Member
Posts: 381
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 6 times
United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by SD67 »

Must have been a pretty esoteric set of requirements. 12 metre turning circle is about the same as a Range Rover

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3182
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 13 times
France

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 31 Dec 2021, 17:19 Is there a JLTV with the steering wheel on the correct side?
And what is the correct side. The side in your own country or the side where all the big exercises and fighting will take place

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6409
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 10 times
Been liked: 41 times
United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by Lord Jim »

The British Army has/does use vehicles with the steering wheel on the left hand side.

Given the experience of the SF using the Bushmaster, I would have thought it would have been a easy decision to buy an additional quantity at least for 1 Para who I believe are part of the SF support Group, and also the new Ranger Regiment. It is an ideal vehicle to provide a section transport for these units and would work well with the Foxhound or JLTV. However the greatly improved Mastiff is also a good fit and modifying additional vehicles may be a better and cheaper option.

How many Foxhounds did we actually purchase overall? It does seem to be in demand and appears to have replaced the Land Rover in many combat units, complimented by the Panther which now seems to be doing the job it was bought for, that of a liaison vehicles with good comms.

The British Army has some very good light and medium wheeled AFVs and if it manages a properly thought out overhaul programme the need to purchase a substantial number of Phase 1 and 2 MRV(P) can be greatly reduced. I actually think the Ranger Regiment would be a good standalone formation to try out the front runners in both categories, as well as modified existing platforms, as their mission profile will certainly test the vehicles. It then should not be too hard to work out what platforms would be suitable to equip BOTH Light BCTs in the future as many of the requirement are the same and only a few additional variants of either platform should be needed.

The Heavy BCTS may be a mess, in my opinion, but at least we should be able to properly equip our light and medium units in an affordable manner. This should be a high priority as these are the units that are gong to be in the spot light far more than the Heavy BCTs, and should see over seas operations far more often as well as planned exercises.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3182
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 13 times
France

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by Tempest414 »

I would agree the army is in need of some tough love for me we need to get a grip we one core vehicle for the light BCT's and for me that is Bushmaster and we need it in

APC ( fitted with RWS with 12.7mm , 30mm & 40mm GMG
Command
Mortar
Anti tank
Air defence
utility / gun limber
battle field repair
medical

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2819
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 35 times
United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 03 Jan 2022, 11:33 I would agree the army is in need of some tough love for me we need to get a grip we one core vehicle for the light BCT's and for me that is Bushmaster and we need it in

APC ( fitted with RWS with 12.7mm , 30mm & 40mm GMG
Command
Mortar
Anti tank
Air defence
utility / gun limber
battle field repair
medical
I think it really depends on what the army intends for the Light BCTs. The structure released with future soldier suggests there is really only one and in general rather than deployable mechanised light brigades they are more a motley collection of the remaining light infantry units. Is there any intention to trade the infantry numbers to more engineering, comm/intel, logistical and artillery specialists to make these organisations self sufficient.

If the long term intention is to have two actual light mech brigades for out of area operations in difficult terrain then having one on a common wheel platform and one on something like Viking with each brigade having a battlegroup at readiness would cover all the bases from the high north to Africa. But I can’t see if that’s the intention

Will meddings threads discussing the logistical challenges of operating light forces at significant range for extended periods show the clear benefits of standardising and streamlining vehicle fleets.

Luke jones
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 11:13
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by Luke jones »

Looking forward wouldn't it be possible for Supacat to give us everything we need for the Light BCTS ?
MRVP would be covered by everything they offer now that they are doing the SPV based On the 400/600 series perhaps?

Wouldn't it be a massive industrial win for them to build on vehicles already provided?
The commonality benefits could be huge I would have thought.

Upgrading all Mastiff to the new standard should be doable too for relatively small amounts of cash.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 797
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by RunningStrong »

MRV-P was supposed to be a low-risk, Off The Shelf solution. SPV is not.

Luke jones
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 11:13
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by Luke jones »

RunningStrong wrote: 03 Jan 2022, 16:22 MRV-P was supposed to be a low-risk, Off The Shelf solution. SPV is not.
Do you think SPV would be high risk?

How new is it if it's based on the series already in use?
Good win for UK industry, levelling up and all that stuff.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 797
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by RunningStrong »

Luke jones wrote: 03 Jan 2022, 16:47
RunningStrong wrote: 03 Jan 2022, 16:22 MRV-P was supposed to be a low-risk, Off The Shelf solution. SPV is not.
Do you think SPV would be high risk?

How new is it if it's based on the series already in use?
Good win for UK industry, levelling up and all that stuff.
Well it's not won any contracts, it's unfielded and I don't believe there's any existing production facility (is there a HMT line even?). And it lost to Ocelot/Foxhound in LPPV.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3182
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 13 times
France

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 03 Jan 2022, 14:47
Tempest414 wrote: 03 Jan 2022, 11:33 I would agree the army is in need of some tough love for me we need to get a grip we one core vehicle for the light BCT's and for me that is Bushmaster and we need it in

APC ( fitted with RWS with 12.7mm , 30mm & 40mm GMG
Command
Mortar
Anti tank
Air defence
utility / gun limber
battle field repair
medical
I think it really depends on what the army intends for the Light BCTs. The structure released with future soldier suggests there is really only one and in general rather than deployable mechanised light brigades they are more a motley collection of the remaining light infantry units. Is there any intention to trade the infantry numbers to more engineering, comm/intel, logistical and artillery specialists to make these organisations self sufficient.

If the long term intention is to have two actual light mech brigades for out of area operations in difficult terrain then having one on a common wheel platform and one on something like Viking with each brigade having a battlegroup at readiness would cover all the bases from the high north to Africa. But I can’t see if that’s the intention

Will meddings threads discussing the logistical challenges of operating light forces at significant range for extended periods show the clear benefits of standardising and streamlining vehicle fleets.
If this is not the intention it should be. As much as I like the idea of one on wheels and the other on Viking I think right now we should just buy 1500 Bushmasters as I laid out above to equip 2 x Light BCT's , Rangers and RAF Regt with 1200 built in the UK and 300 in Australia

SD67
Member
Posts: 381
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 6 times
United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by SD67 »

That could make a great deal of sense. They could be built on a drumbeat over say 5ish years and gradually replace the ex-UOR vehicles as they fall apart. Another pillar to AUKUS. Though I'd at least try to standardise the engine on the Cummins B series (made in Lancashire, used in Jackal), Caterpillar exited the commercial truck engine business a few years back.

BB85
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by BB85 »

Does anyone know why we didn't order bushmaster 15 years ago when we ordered the UOR vehicles? It was available at the time, or where they not able to meet the production numbers required in such a short space of time?
I'm all for ordering Australian but the vehicle is over 20 years old now, would griffon not be a better option even if it is French 🤣

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3182
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 13 times
France

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by Tempest414 »

BB85 wrote: 04 Jan 2022, 10:20 Does anyone know why we didn't order bushmaster 15 years ago when we ordered the UOR vehicles? It was available at the time, or where they not able to meet the production numbers required in such a short space of time?
I'm all for ordering Australian but the vehicle is over 20 years old now, would griffon not be a better option even if it is French 🤣
I think it was mix of it being a new design and speed of delivery however the new Bushmaster MR6 is much improved on the early models Griffon is newer but is based on a commercial truck chassis and still proving it self plus it is more than twice the price. For me bushmaster meets the need for a low cost off the self well proven ( even in UK service ) vehicle that would make the light BCT's highly mobile and capable plus it would fit really well the RAF Regt and Rangers and there needs

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6409
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 10 times
Been liked: 41 times
United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by Lord Jim »

the problem I see already with Future Soldier, is that the Top Brass is looking too far in the future and is neglecting the present and near future. This is probably down to funding issues and future tech is always sexier than belt and braces requirements, especially when it comes to ticking boxes for career progression. Taking the Army off line as a combat force for at least ten years is a big gamble by the MoD and Government, and I am sure other nations have taken note. Having a few forward deployed units that are really still only capable of COIN and Peace Keeping Operations will not fool anyone except the media and many voters. We had better be very good at playing poker.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
wargame_insomniac

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 797
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by RunningStrong »

BB85 wrote: 04 Jan 2022, 10:20 Does anyone know why we didn't order bushmaster 15 years ago when we ordered the UOR vehicles? It was available at the time, or where they not able to meet the production numbers required in such a short space of time?
I'm all for ordering Australian but the vehicle is over 20 years old now, would griffon not be a better option even if it is French 🤣
Because it was more expensive than the US military vehicles that were being made in huge numbers.

And it didn't have front doors...

Mercator
Member
Posts: 382
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 2 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by Mercator »

RunningStrong wrote: 04 Jan 2022, 21:58
BB85 wrote: 04 Jan 2022, 10:20 Does anyone know why we didn't order bushmaster 15 years ago when we ordered the UOR vehicles? It was available at the time, or where they not able to meet the production numbers required in such a short space of time?
I'm all for ordering Australian but the vehicle is over 20 years old now, would griffon not be a better option even if it is French 🤣
Because it was more expensive than the US military vehicles that were being made in huge numbers.

And it didn't have front doors...
Doors were an option back then – see the Bushmaster 'Ute' variant of the time. And whether that and price were ever truly a big issue, it didn't bother your SF people too much.

IDK, I feel that the fact that you ended up with Foxhound, Husky, Mastiff, Wolfhound, Ridgeback, Panther, Pinzgauer as well as Bushmaster – not to mention Bronco – kinda tells me that there was not much of a plan (more of a scramble really), and you might be over estimating the brilliance of any contracting decisions they made in that period. And not making a decision to replace the Snatch Land Rover earlier was a contracting decision as well – made by the same people, more or less.

Nope. Not your finest people. Australia shipped off 25 of our own (new) vehicles to the Dutch to fulfil their urgent requirements (they asked in July 2006 and had them by August). What do you think we might have done for our oldest ally? Don't know – because you never asked.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 797
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by RunningStrong »

Mercator wrote: 04 Jan 2022, 23:57
RunningStrong wrote: 04 Jan 2022, 21:58
BB85 wrote: 04 Jan 2022, 10:20 Does anyone know why we didn't order bushmaster 15 years ago when we ordered the UOR vehicles? It was available at the time, or where they not able to meet the production numbers required in such a short space of time?
I'm all for ordering Australian but the vehicle is over 20 years old now, would griffon not be a better option even if it is French 🤣
Because it was more expensive than the US military vehicles that were being made in huge numbers.

And it didn't have front doors...
Doors were an option back then – see the Bushmaster 'Ute' variant of the time. And whether that and price were ever truly a big issue, it didn't bother your SF people too much.
Earliest front doors I have seen is 2010, by then it was too late. Budget is far less of a concern for our SF. Small quantities, higher demands.
Mercator wrote: 04 Jan 2022, 23:57 IDK, I feel that the fact that you ended up with Foxhound, Husky, Mastiff, Wolfhound, Ridgeback, Panther, Pinzgauer as well as Bushmaster – not to mention Bronco – kinda tells me that there was not much of a plan (more of a scramble really), and you might be over estimating the brilliance of any contracting decisions they made in that period. And not making a decision to replace the Snatch Land Rover earlier was a contracting decision as well – made by the same people, more or less.

Nope. Not your finest people. Australia shipped off 25 of our own (new) vehicles to the Dutch to fulfil their urgent requirements (they asked in July 2006 and had them by August). What do you think we might have done for our oldest ally? Don't know – because you never asked.
Compare to our ability to contract new products to meet their ISD, I'd say buying off a pre-existing American production line was largely the right decision in that period of time.

25 was barely enough. Across that list of vehicles you're looking at circa 2000 platforms. What was your delivery rate again?

BB85
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by BB85 »

Time into service is probably the main reason, they might also have had better mine protection as that was their number 1 priority over mobility.
The cost of maintaining so many vehicles though is bound to be enormous to the point it makes sense for the mod to scrap them and replace with a single chasis like bushmaster.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 797
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by RunningStrong »

BB85 wrote: 05 Jan 2022, 12:29 Time into service is probably the main reason, they might also have had better mine protection as that was their number 1 priority over mobility.
The cost of maintaining so many vehicles though is bound to be enormous to the point it makes sense for the mod to scrap them and replace with a single chasis like bushmaster.
Of course, that's the entire argument for MRV-P!

BB85
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by BB85 »

But the mod seems happy to delay making a decision, pay a fortune to service and upgrade the legacy vehicles, like they did for Mali, and then they will replace them 😂
They did the same with Harrier, Jaguar, Warrior, Nimrod. If there is an opportunity to pay for something twice the MOD will grab it with both hands.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6409
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 10 times
Been liked: 41 times
United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by Lord Jim »

However the upgrade done to the dozen or so Mastiffs for Mali have totally change what the vehicle can do. First and foremost the modifications give it true cross country mobility, something the Mastiff was always criticised for lacking. So yes the Army has a nasty habit of totally messing up its AFV programmes, trying to upgrade older platforms rather then buying new, but in some cases it was a case of the former or former or nothing, especially with the size of the upgrade/new build bow wave that developed whilst the Army was focused on Iraq and Afghanistan. IT still has major issues as the Powers that be seem focused on future technology and have dismissed peer level face to face warfighting as something the British Army will not do in the future, instead relying of Recce and deep strike. Have they got the agreement of any possible opponents regarding this strategy?

The Command Paper and Future Soldier both propose a valid reorganisation of the British Army, but the equipment plan does not match up with the capabilities needed for the new organisation to work. There are too many essential capability gaps that are not even an attempt is being made to fill in my opinion. Of all the reorganisation, equipping the Ranger Regiment and the two Light Brigade Combat Teams should be the easiest and most affordable. The Ranger Regiment and first Light BCT could be filled from existing vehicle fleets with only a small amount of modernisation that should be affordable. The Foxhounds, Mastiffs, Jackals, and Coyotes plus the Panther are available in the number needed with a little creative reorganisation. The 1st LBCT should easily be able to form at least one Battle Group, hopefully two by 2025 if work is started now. The LBCTs as they stand are not fit for purpose though, being mainly an exercise in retaining Cap Badges and providing only one with any real mobility.

We do not have enough Foxhounds though to properly equip a second LBCT, so this is where the initial MRV(P) purchases would go, with deliveries sometime between 2025 and 2028, with the 2nd LBCT fully stood up by 2030. This would allow the Army to fully develop its support for the MRV(P) platforms chosen and allow additional vehicles to be purchased for other units and eventually replacing the legacy vehicles in the 1st LBCT by the mid 2030s. By this time the legacy platform will be worn out by continual usage, but the Army would at least have got their monies worth out of platforms originally purchased as UORs.

Post Reply